How much do you think average CEO pay should be compared to workers?

[nitro harley]

Eric Holders new job pays 77 million plus bonus's. That makes him a 1%. and he gets to hang out with the fat cats at the bank.

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/09/26/eric-holder-takes-77-million-job-with-jpmorgan-chase/

The more I look at this link the more I think it is fake. I don't think it is real. Interesting but I think it is BS

 

[Padawanbater2]

If you say that these rich guys influence elections what you are saying is that the average politician can be *bought*. Yet, you want to place more burdens on the private citizen rather than address the issue of corruption.

Government can seem to do no wrong in your eyes... LOL!!!

I don't see how changing who is in government solves the fundamental problem of a broken system. Changing the players doesn't change the game.

You change the rules by ensuring wealthy individuals can't bribe politicians, effectively limiting the power of their influence.

 

[ginwilly]

I don't see how changing who is in government solves the fundamental problem of a broken system. Changing the players doesn't change the game.

You change the rules by ensuring wealthy individuals can't bribe politicians, effectively limiting the power of their influence.

We agree on the symptom but not the cause.

We limit the power of politicians by decreasing the nanny state and central planning and their influence is no longer worth as much. We prosecute politicians who take bribes (we'll have to first re-write campaign finance laws to call it a bribe) and we'll have less politicians being willing to whore themselves out.

Like I said before, I share in your desire for a more fair playing field, I just disagree where the problems lie.

Politicians make bribery legal, take bribes, then you blame the CEO. I still say your anger is misplaced.

 

[NoDrama]

We've reached a point in time where what other people have matters to the population at large. Billionaires are buying elections and influencing politicians. Their actions weaken not only the American economy, but the global economy.

The fact is, corporations that net billions in profits and pay their CEO's 350 x's their average workers salary while relying on government programs to pay for the difference in their cost of living is unacceptable. The minimum wage remaining stagnant over 4 decades while average CEO pay has increased by hundreds of percent is unacceptable.

Why do people like you fight for the wealthiest people actively fucking you in the ass economically?

Now, can you address any of those facts or will your next reply amount to more bullshit?

newsflash, people been buying politicians since the days of Rome, if not before.

 

[earnest_voice]

We've reached a point in time where what other people have matters to the population at large. Billionaires are buying elections and influencing politicians. Their actions weaken not only the American economy, but the global economy.

The fact is, corporations that net billions in profits and pay their CEO's 350 x's their average workers salary while relying on government programs to pay for the difference in their cost of living is unacceptable. The minimum wage remaining stagnant over 4 decades while average CEO pay has increased by hundreds of percent is unacceptable.

Why do people like you fight for the wealthiest people actively fucking you in the ass economically?

Now, can you address any of those facts or will your next reply amount to more bullshit?

I just don't give two shits... You don't like your shitty wage, become an executive at a fortune 500...

Alternatively, off yourself - you are a useless eater...

 

[Padawanbater2]

We agree on the symptom but not the cause.

We limit the power of politicians by decreasing the nanny state and central planning and their influence is no longer worth as much. We prosecute politicians who take bribes (we'll have to first re-write campaign finance laws to call it a bribe) and we'll have less politicians being willing to whore themselves out.

Like I said before, I share in your desire for a more fair playing field, I just disagree where the problems lie.

Politicians make bribery legal, take bribes, then you blame the CEO. I still say your anger is misplaced.

How do you suggest we accomplish that?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I just don't give two shits... You don't like your shitty wage, become an executive at a fortune 500...

Alternatively, off yourself - you are a useless eater...

Why do people like you with such vapid pseudo-solutions get involved in conversations like these if you "don't give to shits"?

 

[puffntuff]

Lobbying should be illegal. Being the vice pres and CEO of any company that has to do with defense or any military influence should be illegal. Conflict of interest is way too abundant in our fake ass government.

 

[UncleBuck]

How do you suggest we accomplish that?

elect rawn pawl OMGZ!

 

[ginwilly]

How do you suggest we accomplish that?

We demand it. We stop placing the blame on the bribers and put it on the bribees. As long as we excuse the people who take bribes, it won't change.

If a Judge takes a bribe to let off a criminal, we prosecute that judge. Politics and churches are the only places bribery is legal.

 

[ttystikk]

You are incorrect. The current way is totally accountable. The board votes on the pay structure and tenure of the CEO. The stock holders either invest or withdraw their funds depending upon company performance. If the CEO causes the company to lose money it is likely he gets replaced.

The people who's money it actually is are the investors and they are the ones that have to give up a cut of their profit to pay the CEO.

Anyone working for the company VOLUNTARILY joined employment and has no right to claim as much as a penny above the agreed upon pay structure.

Cute and glossy and brightly misleading in every detail. Good luck with that model in a real boardroom.

 

[Padawanbater2]

We demand it. We stop placing the blame on the bribers and put it on the bribees. As long as we excuse the people who take bribes, it won't change.

If a Judge takes a bribe to let off a criminal, we prosecute that judge. Politics and churches are the only places bribery is legal.

Could you be specific, what does 'demand' mean here? Protests, riots, what? It's pretty clear elected officials largely won't do anything about this problem, that's why I support calling for a national convention.

There are likely dozens of supreme court decisions that would need to be overturned to ensure bribery of politicians doesn't happen, like ND said, it's been happening for thousands of years, they've got it down to a science now.

They mask 'bribery' by calling it 'political donations', and those 4 supreme court decisions I often bring up are the justification for it, which is why enacting an amendment would change the entire game.

 

[vostok]

[QUOTE="NoDrama, post: 10928821, member: 16497"
Well lets set you straight on something first. RIU has gone through changes in the past, BEFORE you were ever a member here there was a rep system before there was a like system, so just add 10,000 to that number of his. when the system converted over to the "Like" system, most of us had to start over, but since we don't post in most other areas anymore we don't garner huge amounts of "likes" anymore. Trophy points are more indicative of style and substance anyway, not popular opinion. You post mostly in grow areas where lots of noobies hang out asking what sex their plant is, super easy to get a like there. You haven't even been here a year yet, still wet behind the ears. I doubt you would survive very long in this environment anyway ( politics) most people leave with their tail tucked, will that be you?
Just asking, not like I am attacking you or anything, but I found it a bit odd that a new person would tell an elder that he was better than him.[/QUOTE]

Wall of text ..that Google translate don't/can't figure ..but at 21000 POSTS and just 1696 +1(me) likes
you ain't too popular on this RIU site ...one can assume? no
I should think at this ratio ...of popularity most.. even me would find a more accommodating site, in which the advisories you receive are repaid in 'likes'
why that don't work for you or Harrekin, and a handful of other I know not,
I'm here surprise surprise to improve my English as mentioned in one of my inital post here at RIU.

cut the condescending crap ..you don't have friends in the real world so hang out here hoping to make one/some,
good for you if you do, buy Harrekin a burger,
move on ...I admit to enjoying you replies in the past tho ...so we know you can try

 

[ginwilly]

Could you be specific, what does 'demand' mean here? Protests, riots, what? It's pretty clear elected officials largely won't do anything about this problem, that's why I support calling for a national convention.

There are likely dozens of supreme court decisions that would need to be overturned to ensure bribery of politicians doesn't happen, like ND said, it's been happening for thousands of years, they've got it down to a science now.

They mask 'bribery' by calling it 'political donations', and those 4 supreme court decisions I often bring up are the justification for it, which is why enacting an amendment would change the entire game.

We are both calling for amendment.

First, we as a country have to recognize it, and then we have to be against it. Then we target the politicians who are against campaign reform and vote them out. When there is a cause that is popular with most citizens, you'll see most politicians pandering.

Lobbying isn't the problem, lobbying is how small voices gets heard. It's what we've allowed lobbying to become that is the problem. K street didn't pop up over night. It took decades to become what it is. Now the small voices are not heard because they can't afford to compete with the big voices.

I'll donate 10 bucks if you listen to what I have to say or I'll donate yacht usage and new mink for your wife. Human nature gonna human nature. Our founders understood this with the attempt to limit the power of people over other people. We need to revisit that line of thinking.

We can't eradicate it, we can only hope to contain it.

 

[ttystikk]

"both have an equal impact on profitability" Uhhh.........no.

Really? Try running a company without its senior line staff. Companies try it all the time during strikes- and fail. Then again, it sounds like you're voting for the machine employee. Beware of what you wish for...

 

[ttystikk]

The average employee owns zero stock. One share would be an infinite number times more.

A complete lie of a statistic; if even one employee owns stock in America, your statement is incorrect. Since a substantial portion of us do, it's also misleading... but at least it's consistently misleading. After all, you're still talking out your ass about a job you obviously know dick about.

 

[ttystikk]

A persons payment should be whatever two parties can agree to absent any duress.

In a true free market the pay for every individual will be the intersection of supply and demand for that persons particular skill set.

That is all.

And if CEO pay met the letter and the spirit of that statement, A. They wouldn't be making so much because there would be no artificial limits to supply, and B. Those few who did would be EARNING IT, not merely getting paid out of a corrupt system as they leave their messes behind with no personal consequences.

 

[ttystikk]

newsflash, people been buying politicians since the days of Rome, if not before.

Doesn't make it okay.

 

[Rob Roy]

And if CEO pay met the letter and the spirit of that statement, A. They wouldn't be making so much because there would be no artificial limits to supply, and B. Those few who did would be EARNING IT, not merely getting paid out of a corrupt system as they leave their messes behind with no personal consequences.

The no personal consequences is a result of government. A corporation which provides a shield to irresponsible people is a government construct, invented to aid cronyism.

If you want people to be responsible the last thing you want is a central authority dealing the cards or making up the rules as it goes along.

 

[ttystikk]

The no personal consequences is a result of government. A corporation which provides a shield to irresponsible people is a government construct, invented to aid cronyism.

If you want people to be responsible the last thing you want is a central authority dealing the cards or making up the rules as it goes along.

I said I wanted transparency and accountability, not necessarily government control. Government oversight is nothing to be feared, unless you hate the idea of cops enforcing traffic laws to maintain public safety.